Jump to content

Talk:Britney Spears/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

New Article for All of Britney's Controversies

There should be some sort of timeline listing every single controversy that Britney has had, from her stripping impromptu in the MTV VMAs in 2000, to her not wearing panties when she got out of a car with Paris Hilton.

Well why don't you start it? Myrockstar 22:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem in it. -- Rollo44 02:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Star on walk of fame

Is it mentioned - coz i either didnt read the article well enough or its been removed - i dont think its there and it shud be included as its a prestigious (cant spell that word) award. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.175.122 (talk) 21:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

All this "Lonely" Business

File:Lonely Britney Spears.jpg
Lonely]] (2007) has generally been considered Spears' Best Album to date.NOT TRUE[citation needed]

This has not been confirmed by ANYONE other than the crazies that keep posting it, it's not real and until it's officially confirmed, don't write it in. Myrockstar 23:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how an album that hasn't even been released yet could possibly be considered her best album to date... just what would you base such an opinion on? *Dan T.* 00:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Right, Someone put this "Lonely" in again .. This must be stopped. Jive has said nothing about the new album yet and the cover seems to be one of her very old photoshoot?? (Britney Era).
Yeah how could it be considered her best when no one has heard it? It's probably an obsessive fan trying to get her something good in her name. Black Kat 20:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


Cover Versions

Is it worth mentioning that that "Oops, I did it again" was covered by Children of Bodom?

Britney i want to meet you when will possible

SEx TAPE NOT REAL

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061121/ap_en_ce/people_federline

iT DOESN't exist. sorry to burst bubbles

--68.102.37.191 01:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[sex ] Recently, reports from various newspapers (including the Sydney Morning Herald and The Sun) indicate Federline is threatening to release a Britney Spears sex tape in the wake of the couple's very public divorce.

According to the reports, Federline is recieving offers ranging up to $65 million for the 4 hour tape. K-Fed's publicist's denied charged sex tape rumors. So did B-ritts.

Grammy

has she one one, coz people keep on changing it, and we need to decide that here, without people changing back and forth, if she has one just one, that still counts as a grammey award winning artist.

she won a grammy for "toxic" - best dance recording 2005

Legacy?

"Spears' role in pop music has been largely disputed." -- Yet in the paragraph there is no mention of a dispute of any sort.

I've taken the sentence out. It doesn't say what her role is (for example, it could be "Spears' role as a diva in pop music has been..."). If the role isn't defined, it can't be disputed. Or undisputed. Gone.—Chidom talk  08:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"inspiring several fashion crazes and fads, such as the use of low-rise jeans[39][40] lower back tattoos, navel piercings,[41] and the whale tail [42] among young women." -- Weren't these already popular before Britney? Surely she may have added some popularity to these things, but she hardly "inspired" them.


She brought alot of those fads back, I think the biggest fad that she started was the belly shirt or cropped T-shirt because they became very very popular when she started wearing the in the early 90's. -- aye, popular in her grade school, I'm sure. She would have been 10-14 in the early 90's...

There is a mistake as this article makes reference to Britney as a Grammy Award Winning Artist and she's never won any GRAMMY!!!

she won a grammy for "toxic" - best dance recording 2005

The only way Britney Spears would ever win a Grammy was if she stripped on stage and ran around singing Jingle Bells, and even then she probably wouldn't.

Britney Spears does, in fact, have a Grammy. I can't particularly stand her, but it's true that she won for "Toxic" (you just know these things if you work in entertainment).

Unsourced material

This is some unsourced material I'll put here in case I can find a source, or someone else can

""I believe that you marry in your heart and that means much more than a piece of paper. If I don't feel it there, than nothing else matters. You can write anything down on paper, but the real truth is love." Originally, Spears refused to have a prenuptial agreement, but her manager, Larry Rudolph, and her family insisted she do so and she subsequently fired Rudolph after the wedding."

I had seen on E! True Hollwyood Story: Britney and Kevin, that Britney mutually agreed with Larry Rudolph on firing him. I didn't see anything about prenutpial, I am unsure of that. Myrockstar 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Merging of paragraphs

I have moved alot of content into her bio, alot of the things from controversy I merged it into the appropriate sections since other of her controversial issues could be find there. I also moved someo of the facts from "Career Achievements" into the bio, I deleted that section. I also deleted the "politics" and "religioin" sections, and moved the content into appropriate areas since they were only small parapgraphs and seemed more controversial rather than something personal. Myrockstar 15:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question

Here's something I have noticed lately. If "Brittany Spears" redirects to this page, then how come "Bubba Brister" doesn't redirect to the former National Football League quarterback Bubby Brister? I figure that both names are close enough to the actual names, so I would like some consistency here.--Desmond Hobson 17:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


make a redirect then. its easy.Karaveks voice 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats probably because someone took the time to make the redirect, since youo noticed that "Bubba Brister" doesnt redirect, then make it yourself. 68.203.243.154 23:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, Desmond. I did it for you. ~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 00:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Matt Lauer interview

Could someone who knows a lot about the recent interview with Matt Lauer add it to the main article?

It was already their, I don't know why it was removed. Myrockstar 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Contoversy

Even though most of the contoversy surrounding her child is news, it is still a significant part of her life in the past year, and should be included. I added back the Dateline, and Harper's interview because it was sourced. Info about the driving incidents, and Sean falling off of the high chair should also be added back when they are sourced. Myrockstar 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Error

Farrell's name is Colin.

From the Bottom of My Broken Heart

Someone has violated the page of "From the Bottom of My Broken Heart" again. He or she removes the single cover and adds a crappy picture of an object. This person needs to be stopped. Also on the ...Baby One More Time (song) page that is the international album cover not the single cover.

Thanks for that, I changed the picture, though I don't think it was vandalism, someone probably uploaded a photo and named it "Broken" which replaced the single picture. Bad move in the uploaders part. Also, I believe that was the cover of ...BOMT for the US as well, but I'm not sure, I went to Amazon.com and most of the covers were imports, do you know what cover is the US one? Just put a link and I'll upload it. Myrockstar 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In the Zone

I think that "In the Zone"'s genres should also have R&B and Dance. That is what the album is and it all blends well. Charmed 4:35 16 August 2006


I agree, but the right term for it is urban pop. Thats what In The Zone is for sure.

The "Youtube" Video

"In August 2006, a rather peculiar video[2] of Britney began circulating the internet."

The original source of the so-called "Youtube" video is seldom mentioned in any of the articles that have been written about it. Several of these pieces have claimed that the video was "leaked to the internet". In fact, the video was officially released by Spears herself in September 2005 as part of the "bonus footage" on her "Chaotic" DVD.71.203.30.14 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My Prerogative and Genre

Someone removed Britney's "My Prerogative" information declaring it is Bobby Brown's article only, but I returned the information. Britney should have her own page if people are going to vandalize it. Who keeps removing urban pop from her genre. It is correct. She wanted to make more adult-oriented music and that is urban pop. Charmed36 3 20:00 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge from Jason Allen Alexander

I moved the "mergefrom" request for Jason Allen Alexander to the "public image" section rather than "career development" -- even though it fit the timeline, it doesn't really relate to her career. In any event, I support the merge because JAA is notable only for his 55 hours of fame and there is little other information on his own page. HalJor 21:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

5th Studio Album And New Baby Boy

in 2006 she had a girl named Jailyn

It seems she's had a son.
Is it true he's called Sutton Pierce Federline, or just rumour??

no the babies name is Jayden James not Sutton

Can we remove something?

Okay does the biography really need the 2006 VMA cameo? Is it really a vital part of her career? No. Someone should remove it. She has had much more publicised VMA appearances but they arnt mentioned. So I think it should be removed.

I agree it won't really be relevant in the future. Nobody owns this article so be brave and remove it yourself if you'd like. Myrockstar

the album sales???

i am calculating the sales of brit and i think it is 86 million copies all in all not seventy six million ...

Useless Information

then she also recorded cover version of Crystal Waters' classic dance hits "Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless)" (1991), "100% Pure Love" (1994) and Stevie V's house/dance classic song "Dirty Cash (Money Talks)" (1990) however, In the article Spears had also commented that her impending childbirth, a second scheduled caesarean section, "[would] be a piece of cake." [24] On August 20, 2006, Spears introduced her husband, Kevin Federline, at the Teen Choice Awards. This was her first appearance at an awards show in almost two years. Britney will also release a new fragrance in late fall or early winter; it will be her fourth fragrance in all. Britney and her husband Kevin Federline also appeared via satellite at the 2006 MTV Video Music Awards that were held in New York to present the award for Best R&B Video. They performed a quick skit kicking back at what the media portray them as, even as far as pretending to misplace their child. This however was not seen to be in good humour, as the UK's Daily Mirror commented on September 2 that their joke went down like a lead balloon. In fact, in subsesquent replays of the VMA's on MTV, the skit is completely edited out and goes right from Jack Black introducing Spears and Federline to them announcing the nominees.

All of this info is useless and really isnt needed.

Is there any info about Ms. Spears that isn't basically useless?  :-) *Dan T.* 00:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Plenty of info actually, just refer to the article ;-). Myrockstar 02:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Source?

then she also recorded cover version of Crystal Waters' classic '90s dance hits "Gypsy Woman (She's Homeless)", "100% Pure Love" and Stevie V's classic song "Dirty Cash (Money Talks)" *Unforgivable* 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the source of this?? I really don't think that it's true, it's just a rumour.. it should be removed!

Remove it yourself. Myrockstar 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why, but I can't. *Unforgivable* 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sutton Pierce isnt the name

Kevin Federline announced in the video that Sutton Pierce isnt that name of the child and didnt even specify that gender of the baby.

the name is jayden james federline its official it was posted on www.tmz.com they have the birth certificat.

who ever puts britney spears album sales in here as 76 million is a britney hater. it's 85 million... not even combined with her single sales you knowww...

britney was born in mccomb,missisipi. her official weddind papers says its her birthplace.

Native American

I believe that the reference to Spears "claiming" Native American heritage is crazy. Everyone knows Britney Spears is not Native American, she's a freaking beaner! Her dark hair and tan skin obviously show she is Mexican. Does Britney even look Native American? No, she looks like a Mexican. If it wasn't for her so called singing talents, she'd be sweeping floors at your local McDonalds 2nd shift.

That's so racist I don't even know how to respond to it. Gafaddict 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Extremely racist and stupid. Like about 40 million 'white' Americans she has some Native American blood (as do I). Deal with it.

65.100.188.147 06:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

britney spears giving birth on bear skin rug

why not add this? http://www.send2press.com/newswire/2006-03-0322-003.shtml

Divorce

http://www.tmz.com/2006/11/07/britney-spears-files-for-divorce/ Apparently she's filed for divorce. So just giving a heads up about lots of speculation that may come into the article. Ixistant 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Britney Spears files for divorce from her husband Kevin Federline, citing irreconcilable differences. http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&scoring=d&q=spears+Kevin+Federline&btnG=Search+News 84.166.50.155
she's filed for divorce from kevin and is spreading all over the internet and radio 66.209.94.39
Having sorted out all the anon edits over the page, is there any significance in the fact that their $10M libel suit re the alleged sex-tape gets dismissed, the day before she announces their divorce? There's nothing to link them directly at present, but one happens the days after the other - surely we shoudl mention the case dismissal? ref at [1] Rgds, - Trident13 23:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The date is important because of her legal wedding date - the pre-nup said Federline is entitled to more money for each year they are married. The date she filed for divorce is just less than 30 days after her wedding anniversary. If she had divorced him the next day, legally they would have been married for another year, and Federline would have been entitled to more money.

many wrestling sites are reporting britney is getting divorced because k-fed destroyed some stuff after she laughed at him after seeing his performences on WWE Raw and at WWE Cyber Sunday...see www.pwmania.com

Gossip from a poor source. I deleted the gossip.
A poor soursce? Just like wikipedia!::

In the first paragraph it says "Spears filed for divorce from Federline on November 7, 2006, citing “irreconcilable differences." Later it says "On November 6, 2006, Britney Spears filed for divorce from her husband Kevin Federline citing irreconcilable differences..." Well, situation normal... Tri 08:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Britney Lyrics Collection

should the Link to Britney Lyrics Collection be added to wikipedia?

Britney Lyrics Collection

Paris Hilton

someone removed this?: On November 27, 2006 it was reported that Paris Hilton had her hand upon the left breast of Spears, and the episode was caught by camera. [2]

About "those" pics

They certainly don't deserve their own section in here, but it has been newsworthy even crashing many blogging websites, and they along with her being friends with Paris Hilton deserve a mention.


Is there a WIKI::SILLY-CENSORs TEMPLATE

Don't post a link to her snatch pics, and don't even mention it at all. What kind of encyclopedia is this? A crappy puritantical POV encyclopedia 71.39.78.68 05:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

She is only 25 and she's allowed to be human. Leave her the hell alone, vulture.

Phil

65.100.188.147 06:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Naked Pics

Why do people keep deleting the info. about the tabloid photos? She used to be one of the biggest icons in the world and sexually explicit pics popping up on the net and crashing servers all over the world is certainly worthy of a mention. This is not a fan page! Just because you don't like the info does NOT make it unworthy of mention. Grow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.110.207 (talk • contribs)

The info about the incident is okay, but the links to the photos, and the unencyclopedic tone of your addition are not (in my opinion). And it doesn't need to be a separate section. I'm putting back the rewritten version. -- ArglebargleIV 22:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That strikes a good balance. She's also a human being (and only 25), show her some respect. I applaud keeping the vultures at bay here.

Phil

65.100.188.147 06:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's definetley worth a mention as I pointed above, I'm not sure Perez Hilton's opinion is necessary though. Is it just me or the does the page cut off about here Myrockstar 02:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Perez Hilton was somebody who commented on it in the ET and People online stories, it seemed to me like a good quote to put in, but I'm certainly not upset if it goes. -- ArglebargleIV

Removing perceived unencyclopedic commentary is fine, but censoring links to the photos seems a bit heavy-handed and puritanical, IMHO. The photos are a huge pop culture issue at the moment, and the reader should at least have access to the information as to where to readily find the pictures online.Ronstock 02:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Users do have access to where to find the pictures. It's called "Google". The pictures themselves don't add any illustrative information to the article that isn't there already. -- ArglebargleIV 17:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, brother. The Google defense. Why bother having an article at all then, since surely all the information in the article can be found on Google? The way the paragraph reads now makes it sound like it was written by Perez Hilton himself as an advertisement for his web site. Pretty cheesey and unencyclopedic, IMHO. Ronstock 17:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The Google defense? You'r comparing an entire comprehensive encyclopedic article about her to pictures of her vagina? If you want to see them that bad, Perezhilton.com has them, there leaving his statement seems to solve both problems. 72.178.222.237 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • You mistake my exasperated hyperbole for an actual analogy. My point was that if you're discussing the fact that the pictures exist, would it not make sense logically to reference (by footnote or hyperlink) where the pictures are to be found online? If the point of the section is to provide information on Britney in pop culture, why exclude pop culture references. And believe me, I am not eager to see any more of the pictures of her vagina myself. I saw one and that was enough. It wasn't exactly flattering. I'm done talking about this issue.

I removed the reference to Perez Hilton, and speculation about "cries for help"... Ronstock 17:53, 01 December 2006 (UTC)


Do we reward paparazzi who crowd celebs exiting vehicles?

Yes as a society we do. Think about that on the anniversary of Lady Diana's death-- they were the reason her car was speeding that tragic night. Paparrazi is such a cute name-- 'press piranah' would be better.

In line with wiki standards-- aren't there sourcable incidents where paparrazi put Spears in danger because of overly aggressive/wreckless behavior?

Can anyone link or quote these?

65.100.188.147 13:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made this edit per this discussion, but I'd like more opinions. In a nutshell, I believe getting caught commando is only notable at an unexpected or inappropriate event. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 15:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to help, but my telencephalon withers in all matters regarding either her, Ms Lohan, or the young Ms Hilton. :) Syrthiss 16:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
We don't reward or punish paarazzi. Moral indignation isn't an exclusion criteria here. But this is a content question - not an admin one. Take it to the article talk page, or try RfC. Indeed, someone should remove this thread.--Docg 16:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, news is news, the idea that we reward or punish people through our articles is a bit suspect. The actual question is, is this news? I'm not inclined to re-insert it, personally. This does belong on the article talk page though. --W.marsh 16:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes it's news, It made ABC, it's flooded websites, it's been all over the entertainment shows and before somebody says E! News has no merit I remind everyone that Britney does work in entertainment. And I don't see any rewards given to the paps in the article. The mention goes back in. Myrockstar 17:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
its should be added, if it's to an encyclopedia this should be added if it's causing servers to crash - its pretty big deal
Per WP:BLP, I've removed this again; I would be inclined to leave it in if the focus of the paragraph changes to the crashing of websites, particularly if those sites are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia that would survive WP:AFD. Without that data, this fails our standards. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Britney herself is notable, as was her company that evening. This event is notable and has stirred up a good deal of controvercy and has fast entered the public consciousness, making it a fertile source for pop-culture references. It deserves a mention. Neitherday 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Without applying any value judgment, just following WP:N and WP:RS, I don't see how we can omit some mention of this in the public image section.

It seems to pretty clearly meet the notability and reliable sources guidelines. -- Jim Douglas (talk) (contribs) 01:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, silly me, I added a paragraph about it without coming here first. I also left out exactly what O'Reilly and many others are speculating specifically, namely that she's desparately crying for attention, and obviously is getting some. It's not just this, though; it's just the latest in a series of oddities, and the usual hand-wringing over whether this will be a bad influence on young teens (who are as apt to say "Yuch!" as anything, I betcha). One thing for sure, though: Britney has now become a "lobbyist". >:) Wahkeenah 02:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Even given the ever-blurring line, tabloid is tabloid, no matter who picks it up. Demonstrate in the paragraph why average Joe Encyclopedia Reader should care, and it should stay; at the moment, the "crashing" of notable websites is the only reason I can see that would answer "so what?" Otherwise, its presence is only to titillate and belittle beyond the purview of an encyclopedia. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
How is it any less worthy than the other tabloid stuff from 2006 that's already listed? It's all part of a pattern, as those pundits are saying. Wahkeenah 11:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I can't see how it isn't worth some mention. If you're going to biography her divorce and ensuing fall out - then going out on the lash with some of the most well known female drinkers deserves a mention, as does flashing your bits. Given only a few weeks ago she was fighting a case based on an alleged sex vid where the Judge actually judged against her based on the fact she sells her sexuality - this is probably the biggest pat on the back the judge could get. As for the depth. Meh. It's inconsequential, just like nipple slips and such. However something along the lines of "generated a lot of interest in the media after being caught 'commando' on nights out with Paris Hilton and L.Lohan" then a cite.--Koncorde 14:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
If it was only a one-time thing, like the occasional falling-out-of-one's-top, it might not be worth covering (pardon the ironic metaphor). But it seems she has been caught several times recently, which suggests that she's either doing it purposefully or doesn't care, and either answer possibly suggests that she's lost her marbles. Or maybe it's trauma connected with turning 25? Who'd've thought that Paris Hilton would be the sensible one of that pair? Wahkeenah 14:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Divorce, by necessity, demonstrates cause-and-effect; police saying you've put your kid at risk does the same. Merely getting caught commando (twice, that I've heard of) by a well-placed paparazzo does not demonstrate effect. The crashing of notable websites does. Edit: If it comes up in any child custody case—as opposed to media suggesting that it might—that, too, would satisfy cause-and-effect.RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
There's more than child-custody here, there's also a continuing pattern of a public image that many consider to be a bad role model. Wahkeenah 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Please read the guidelines on weasel words and phrases, of which "many consider to be" is one; also, unless quoting an expert, that's original research. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Define what an "expert" would be in this context. Wahkeenah 00:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
If a reliable source recognizes someone as an expert, they're an expert. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
An expert on what, though? On whether someone is a bad role model? There's no "expertise" on such a subject, just opinions. To be fair-and-balanced, you would have to cite someone who says it is, and someone who says it "ain't". Wahkeenah 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As are all "experts" into intangibles, which is why it must be an expert recognized as such by a reliable source. Meantime, until effect can be established, it must not be restored per WP:BLP. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 02:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have protected this article against editing until all participants read and understand WP:BLP#Public figures. This is an official policy and will not be taken lightly. Any proposal to reinsert material regarding the article subject's pantiless appearance will be presented and cleared on this talk page beforehand. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Then the remainder of the sea needs similar attention, rather than to use it as an excuse to ignore WP:BLP. This is an encyclopedia article, not a tabloid page, and anything else that cannot establish notability needs to go. My alternative was to block you for essentially violating WP:3RR; I am instead forcing the issue here, where it belongs. Let's fix this thing. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Good thing, since I did not violate the more-than-3-reverts-in-24-hours rule. Also, someone else added it back and I tried to make it more factual and neutral, but you zapped it again. I don't get why you're hung up on this specific thing, while having no problem with her previous-and-also-purposeful exhibitionism on the front page of that one magazine. Wahkeenah 04:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You did no such thing; each successive reinsertion has been less notable, less cited, and less likely to satisfy WP:BLP than the edit before, and has come across as an intentional effort to avoid this discussion, never mind policy. Without the necessary "effect" of the equation, what you seem to think I'm "hung up on"—which, given your seeming obsession to get the data in the article, seems intended to distract—is not a matter of my preferences or anyone else's; it is a matter of encyclopedic policy. (Meantime, please go reread WP:3RR—we are not "given" three reverts in 24 hours, that is a maximum, and the guideline explains why.) Once again, this is an item to fix, not to fight over. Let's fix it, either by demonstrating "effect", or by leaving it out. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I say again, I did not break the 3-revert rule; and maybe you could explain why her exhibitionism on the cover of a magazine is any more notable than her exhibitionism from a few days ago. Wahkeenah 05:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
One, you break its spirit, and intentionally so. Two, an intentional, paid appearance on the cover of a magazine that sells to millions of people is in any way comparable to an accidental exposure to a well-placed paparazzo? RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Don't go lecturing me about breaking the "spirit" of the rule, as if I were playing the "keep it to 3" game, when in fact I wasn't watching the clock at all, so it wasn't intentional, either. I suppose I should thank you for calling the clock to my attention, except that I consider you to have tricked me into almost breaking the rule, by your own continued reversions, but I forgive you. This time. And don't try to argue this recent thing wasn't intentional. She was sitting there in the car with her skirt hiked way up. I'm guessing you haven't seen the photos. She either did it on purpose or was drunk-as-a-skunk and didn't really care. Either way, it's part of a "meltdown" pattern that has been building up over time. Her pose on the magazine is also part of it. And that's not my opinion as such, that's what the critics are saying, and yes, I know you think their opinions are worthless, so enough of that already. Wahkeenah 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Was your "lecture" of my "obsession" deserved, as you ventured off point into argumentum ad hominem? Per WP:BLP, potentially damaging data is by policy to be avoided until and unless its presence is justified; rather than work to justify it here, you continued to restore it to the article—indeed, one step further from justifiability with each reversion. Policy demands its removal, period, whatever excuse you create for my motivations. As far as "critics" discussing her "meltdown", there continues to be a dearth of reliable sources to back up this claim; I'll gladly retract that objection once you start to satisfy that guideline as required by policy. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
At this point, I think it is unlikely that you are going to agree with any citations. O'Reilly fancies himself a "Culture Warrior" and an expert, of sorts, on this topic, presumably as a result of many, many observations which he has captured in yet another book (in addition to the TV show, the radio show, and the newspaper column - the old boy must never sleep). And I still think you're obsessed with this one particular issue. All I did was report the facts. If I had any extra spin, I took that away, but that's still not enough to satisfy whatever your issue is with this. That this happened, and garnered a good deal of publicity, is undeniable, cited fact. She can't sue us for reporting what actually happened. And it is not necessary to overtly say anything about a pattern. Listing the events of the last few months might suggest a pattern, to the reader who chooses to put that spin on it. Meanwhile, you've got this page monopolized now, so there is nothing more to do with it. Wahkeenah 06:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You presume, and falsely, a great deal—both about me and about O'Reilly (your note that he "fancies himself ... an expert" speaks nearly the volumes as does your assertion that I've "monopolized" the article). Cause and effect is an equation, and you seem singularly unwilling or unable to satisfy the equation—if you can satisfy encyclopedic policy, it will stand, and what you do or do not think of me will become correctly irrelevant. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Kirk does seem obsessed with this and doesn't seem to understand the various points different users have made, that 1) Many credible news sources thought it was important enough to give it mention, one even two or more articles 2) It was a pattern 3) It's all been part of her post-divorce, as well as the notable friendship with Paris Hilton. As lude as it was, it's now an important part in Spears' personal life as well as career and is no longer just "tabloid" rubbish and should be part of the article, maybe it wasn't as notable for Lindsay Lohan, but the past week has proven it is for Britney. Myrockstar 05:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Twice is a "pattern"? A friendship with Paris Hilton is notable beyond tabloid journalism? This is "now an important part in Spears' personal life as well as career"? I'd like to think I have a better understanding of WP:NOR than do you—not a fragment of that (as written) is verifiable, as policy demands. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sheesh. just because something makes Access Hollywood on NBC doesnt make it notable. You guys actually think someone taking a photo up Spear's dress or the fact she went out drinking with no underwear on, is notable? Are you guys editing an encyclopedia or a fanzine? Caper13 05:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Twice? It's happened four times, would you like for me to post every single picture? NOR? Have you not even glanced by those articles detailing the incidentS? You seem to have brought this here so we could dicuss and decide wether to insert the mention or not, and yet you don't seem to listen to anyone else but yourself. Myrockstar 05:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
As near as I've been able to discern, you're referring to images from a maximum of two events; images does not events make. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, one night she almost had a full slip then later in the night went to show "the whole thing", but in 2 other seperate nights she flashed, or was caught by a paparazzi... whatever. Even thought the full view has only been given once, it's notable enough that this happened three nights in four different instances making it a pattern. Once wearing a "Lil' Miss Sunshine" T shirt, again wearing a black mini dress, then again wearing a green dress in a gasoline station. Myrockstar 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What is "notable" and is a "pattern", apparently, is quite the chasm between us—and two nights are all I've heard of, but we're venturing from point. The satisfaction of encyclopedic policy is paramount, not our opinions; granted, it is my assessment of whether WP:BLP is being met, but it's a powerful assessment based on WP:NOT, and ad hominem arguments over that with which I may or may not be "obsessed" do not even attempt to address the issue: why should this be in the article (as opposed, as noted by Caper13, to a fanzine). The validity of this sort of potentially damaging data is the crux of what an encyclopedia is all about, and why we must err on the side of caution. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wahkeenah, Myrockstar, Jim Douglas etc.. This information has to be included... It was a series of events well reported by the mainstream press, that were related to a subject in Wikipedia, and its inclusion seems to meet all policies and guidelines.Unless someone can come up with some exceptional reason for its exclusion, it goes in.

Any user's moral objection to these occurrences or the reporting of them should not be the deciding factor unless there is a relevant guideline or policy. I think we all know by now that Wikipedia is not censored.

See my comments at Talk:Lindsay_Lohan#Gone_per_WP:BLP_and_WP:N. Joaq99 14:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

...and my reply. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The information is clearly notable, beyond any reasonable doubt, and therefore it must go in the article. I have added a short paragraph about it with two reliable sources to back it up and I expect it to remain in the article, as policy provides no valid reason for removal. Everyking 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

With all possible respect, that was the worst version I've seen yet, slam-dunking WP:NPOV into the turf. First, clearly absent a speculum, the vagina is not visible, failing accuracy standards. Second, the use of sources appears intended to create a conclusion rather than to support it. The issue has not changed, and continues its failure to show the "effect" in "cause-and-effect" beyond a few people posting to blogs and/or forums: cite some actual "experts" (subjective, certainly, but notable and accepted within the industry) rather than pundits who either haven't a clue or are exploiting this for their own gain; write it in a manner that is encyclopedic, as opposed to the "oh, my God, I can see her labia!!!" tabloid style that an encyclopedia should never present; and, prove it should be here and not in Defamer—then and only then will WP:BLP support its inclusion. Despite being overruled in protecting this page, I remain steadfast in the belief that this is a policy issue, not a content dispute. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
My version may be bad; perhaps more competent editors had already written better stuff on this and their work was deleted. That's a shame. It's funny that you are opposed to including it altogether, yet you're nitpicking at problems in my version (which was basically a shortened version of the former paragraph, with citations added): by all means improve it, but don't remove it. I don't care about the details, the information just needs to be presented. Everyking 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Unlike at Lindsay Lohan, where there is no notability whatsoever, I am not opposed to its inclusion here; I am opposed to its inclusion for inclusion's sake. I may indeed attempt a better version; WP:BLP#Public figures, meantime, demands its removal until a true "effect" is shown in the cause-and-effect relationship—and pundits and talk-show hosts looking for ratings do not qualify. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, conjecture though it may be, I've changed my position from here: a divorce lawyer discussing the child custody case satisies both the need for an expert and the need to show effect. I believe this data is now presented in its proper—and, at present, its only possible—context. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that RadioKirk recuse himself from further discussions. We get it Kirk, but well, you're the only one here that agrees with you. You are acting in a very POV manner, and frankly, well just having to mention your POV antics is very distressful to me and makes me physically ill. Again Kirk, who appointed you WIKI Snatch Nazi? Recuse yourself, please.Mr.POV 05:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice try—and, nice name, registered apparently only for this discussion—but mine is the only position absent POV, as official policy requires of all of us. Meantime, it is my "job" as a janitor to ensure that encyclopedia articles follow standards as dictated by policy; the suggestion that I recuse myself from that "job" is wrong on every possible level. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
That's the whole point Kirk, you are in no position to judge your own POV or nonPOV. I suggest you read more about POV as you don't get it. It's sort of a Heisenburgian/Einstein construct. You can't judge your own POV or NPOV. And as the individual that protected the page, you should definitely take the steps to recuse yourself from any discussions of what the page looks like. Protecting the page is a POV step as to what is happening and thus invalidates any claim you have to having an NPOV argument. And while it's beside the point, the blatant POV censorship of most wiki articles by wiki nazis such as yourself is what led to my username, not just your ugly and distateful efforts on this article.Mr.POV 18:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
It's laughable that you slam my lack of POV given your own, unabashedly POV posturing that I'm removing from the top of this page with this very edit. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Well it looks like Kirk loses for now, "no panties" stands in the article as it rightly should, despite the efforts of POV morality police couching their arguments in terms of wiki policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.19.173.43 (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Do your homework, please. I wrote the paragraph now in the article as it is the only presentation of facts that (arguably) satisfies cause-and-effect, allowing it to pass WP:CRUFT (an essay), WP:N (a guideline reached via consensus), WP:NPOV (a policy) and WP:BLP (a policy)—all in spite of your efforts to make this a morality issue, which it is not and never was. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I was wondering who decided to promulgate FOX News' conservative view of the family in the article. Feel free to continue helping me make my points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.173.43 (talk • contribs)
That's an effort to paint me as a conservative? That I finally found sufficient cause-and-effect to write such an entry when I was removing it without one? Hilarious... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it is a way to quantify NPOV, permitting weaseling on either side as long as the count balances out. Of course now its moot as we have a more clear cause-and-effect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.40.20 (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Spears' acknowledgement

At britneyspears.com—pretty much renders everything here moot. Added to article. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I find the insertion of [sic]'s to be a little unnecessary. I'm not entirely sure what they're highlighting, or what purpose they're serving.--Koncorde 11:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, the first is because "new found" should be one word, and the second is because the apostrophe is off by one letter. Looks right to me. -SpuriousQ 11:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
The multiple sics are clumsy and awkward. The second part of the quotation about Victoria Secret is also out of context with the lead-in text of that sentence. The sics can easily be omitted, as quoted text is already known to be from another source. But its an easy way for one to follow the letter of editorial law in the spirit of pointing out another person's faults. Of course, the author could not be aware of doing this, as rightly stated above one cannot be the judge of one's own POV/NPOV status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.173.43 (talk • contribs)
SpuriousQ is correct; strictly editorial. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I should have said that better. I know what they're referring to in a grammatical sense. But not entirely sure if they were trying to infer something as they look somewhat spiteful (particularly the multiple use of within the space of a sentence) rather than particularly editorial. Seemed somewhat unnecessary to me.--Koncorde 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Nothing else was intended. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at it again and saw an option I missed; now it seems much cleaner. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Baby incidents

I just realized that all the information on her news-making baby incidents (driving with Sean in lap, driving with Sean in forward-facing car seat, high chair breaking, almost dropping him ...) has been deleted. I think most of this information should be included, especially the driving incidents as there was an explosion of media attention over this (the United States Secretary of Transportation even commented!) and basically a public debate over her parenting abilities - both accusatory and defensive. It should be added back into the public image section, no? Starcross 00:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yes, it should. It's part of the same pattern of media over-exposure, and in fact is a lot more important in the larger issue of "setting a bad example" than is the pregnant nude cover photo. Wahkeenah 14:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be added. It was a big mark in her career, and encyclopedias are meant to be a semi-biography. Things like controversy are always encyclopedia worthy. Black Kat 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This was taken from an earlier version of the article

"Photos published on February 7, 2006, showed Spears driving her SUV on the Pacific Coast Highway in Los Angeles with her infant son, Sean, perched on her lap rather than strapped into a car seat in the back. The photos show Spears holding the wheel of the car with one hand, and her 4-month-old baby with the other. In a statement to People, Spears said she did it because of a "horrifying, frightful encounter with the paparazzi" and that "I was terrified that this time the physically aggressive paparazzi would put both me and my baby in danger. I instinctively took measures to get my baby and me out of harm’s way, but the paparazzi continued to stalk us. I love my child and would do anything to protect him." She later told Access Hollywood, "It's kind of like I made a mistake and so it is what is, I guess." No charges were pressed. Later that month, U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, speaking at an event at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to mark the start of Child Passenger Safety Week said, "Recent photos of Britney Spears driving with her infant son on her lap are troubling...and while Ms. Spears has acknowledged her mistake, her actions still send the wrong message to millions of her fans."

On April 1, 2006, Spears' 7-month-old son fell and bruised his head after slipping from his nanny's arms as she was lifting him from his high chair and "something snapped in the chair." After an initial examination, he was thought to be fine but six days later Spears and her husband took him to the Santa Monica UCLA Medical Center for a second checkup. He got the all clear once again. This is the third incident so far. Following this visit, child welfare officials, as well as a sheriff's deputy, visited the Spears home. "While there was an automatic report by the hospital to the Department of Children and Family Services, DCFS immediately responded and determined there was no problem and no reason to open a formal investigation," Spears's attorney Marty Singer told People. "They determined that the parents were not involved in any injury and that nothing improper was done within the home."

On May 14, 2006, Spears was photographed driving in Malibu in her new convertible Mini with her 8-month-old son, Sean, strapped into a forward-facing car seat. It is strongly recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics that infants stay in rear-facing car seats until they are a year old or weigh at least 20 lb. "The seat is facing the wrong way. We like it when the child's head is facing back," said California Highway Patrol spokesman Tom Marshall. "It's far safer if the seat is facing backwards to avoid head-on injuries and whiplash in case of a collision." Since CHP officers did not actually witness Spears driving with Sean facing the wrong way, they would not consider citing her. Spears' rep released a statement saying, "There is no law in California requiring rear-facing car seats. In fact, there are only ten states that require a child to be in a rear-facing car seat, and in two of those states it is not required if the infant is more than 20 lb. Britney's son Sean weighs over 20 lb." Therefore, Britney Spears made absolutley no fault in this instance.

On May 18, 2006, Spears was photographed leaving the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Manhattan with a glass in one hand and her 8-month-old son in the other. As Spears walked through the people and paparazzi-crowded street, towards her car, she stumbled and nearly dropped her baby. Sean's head jerked backwards and his hat flew off. Spears managed to regain her balance and prevent the fall with the aid of her bodyguard, who was close by. After retreating to the F.A.O. Schwarz Café, Spears started crying." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Myrockstar (talk • contribs) 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

I thought it was a plastic cup? Not that it matters. But still. Proportion, and blown out of.--Koncorde 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Radiokirk - improper protection?

Radiokirk, without taking sides - I'm very concerned you used admin powers to protect this article while being a party in the dispute. See Wikipedia:Protection_policy. This is perhaps one of the oldest and most respected tenets of Wikipedia administrator behavior. Can you please explain? Otherwise, I'll have to unprotect. -- Fuzheado | Talk 06:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply here. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I just read your note. How is reporting a verifiable fact "damaging", especially in light of the other stuff already listed in the article? Wahkeenah 13:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
An encyclopedia is not a tabloid; beginning, middle and end of story. This sort of potentially damaging data—and, make no mistake, it is exactly that—requires the demonstration of its effect, or its inclusion is to unduly titillate and nothing more. (Edit: This is particularly true of the first version I saw, in which the encyclopedia essentially used the data to question her fitness as a parent.) Frankly, I don't care if the young woman wants to flash her snatch for all the world to see; until and unless the entire cause-and-effect equation is satisfied, they will not see it here. Meantime, I personally would like to see the Harper's Bazaar paragraph strengthened with comparative sales figures—I'm reasonably certain the article would not succeed WP:FA candidacy without it. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Unprotected

I am unprotecting the article for now, without prejudice, meaning the WP:BLP#Public_figures policy has not been obviously violated, and the result is best characterized as a content dispute. Cheers. -- Fuzheado | Talk 10:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Myrockstar 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is Kirk's problem anyway? This is not a Britney fan page. The mention of those infamous shots is certainly worthy of mention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.110.207 (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Nor is it a tabloid nor a repository for fancruft. "That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", the policy states, and the only way such data is suitable is if it satisfies both cause and effect, as the just-restored version arguably does (the entire section was deleted as part of several vandalism edits by User:148.61.13.4). RadioKirk (u|t|c) 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand why someone "going commando" is worth a mention in an encyclopedia article. Powers T 15:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Just curious - the page still seems to be semi-protected, yet I don't see it on the list of semiprotected pages (that I was able to find), nor is its semiprotection status listed in the article. Should the page be semi-protected? If so, should it be mentioned in the article? Mr.POV 18:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Better photo?

Is it possible to put up a better, and more recent photo of Britney for the main page? PatrickJ83 23:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have to be replaced by another free image which would be incredibly hard to find unless someone is willing to donate one. Myrockstar
I agree. There are tons of recent pictures of her that would work just fine, not every single one has her nethers hanging out. But I don't know about the picture policy on Wikipedia well enough to change it myself. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.186.155.167 (talk) 04:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Please read the post immediately above yours by Myrockstar and Wikipedia's fair-use policy. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 04:50, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. We can put the one from the New Year's Eve party. Why not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.19.113.56 (talk • contribs) 20:13, January 2, 2007 (UTC)
Because of what Wikipedia's fair-use policy says. In this context, here's the key part of it: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available." (emphasis original). The existing image is 100% free-use... so the only way it can be replaced is with another 100% free-use image. Any other image would be reverted out on that basis. Tabercil 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


I have a few great pics. of her that were taken at concet and things but I cant figue out how to place an imagin into any of it...can someone help out, I fell soo dumb!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Csmfetish217 (talk • contribs) 04:18, January 7, 2007 (UTC)

There are several different ways of getting the photos onto Wikipedia. If you're willing to put the photos into the public domain (needed if they're to replace the existing one), then you can upload them to the Wikimedia Commons. The upload page for the commons is here, and the help files on how to upload are here.
Alternately, you can upload the pictures to Flickr, then post on this page the Flickr address. If you go this route, make sure the license you use to upload the images with is Creative Commons, and do not use the No-Commercial and No Derivatives subtags!
Lastly, if you're really helpless, you can email them to me and I'll be willing to turn around and upload the images. Tabercil 16:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


Thanx dude

Congratulations!!!

This article represents one of the best examples of NPOV I've seen on Wikipedia. (For a celebrity) Both Spears and Federline are treated fairly by the article. Well done!! Michaelh2001 19:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article's Good article status under review for possible delisting, see Good article review

This article's Good article status under review for possible delisting, see Good article review. --Ling.Nut 00:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to dedicated editors: I voted to keep the GA status, but would really like to see some more thorough referencing at key points, including:
  • Direct quotes, such as ""Unfortunately, we couldn't take our honeymoon right after the wedding because of the closing on our new house."
  • Facts and figures, such as "The album debuted at number four on the U.S. charts with over 242,000 copies sold."
Thanks --Ling.Nut 05:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Audio Samples

Is there a way to compile all the audio samples into one list? Being spread all over the article makes it look cluttered. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.203.249.145 (talk • contribs).

Well check it here: Category:Britney Spears audio samples, actually I don't think it is being spread all over the article I only added two audio samples per timeline.--HW-Barnstar PLS 17:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I put them all on a list in her discography section. I stole the idea from the Prince article. Myrockstar 05:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Passing out in drunk and now in rehab

Could someone update the article with a paragraph or two regarding her passing out drunk in a club on New Year's? Also, she seems to have checked herself into rehab to address her drug and alcohol problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.84.98.225 (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Categories: English-Americans & American expats in UK

Don't ask me why I'm even on this page, that's the nature of Wikipedia I guess, you never know where you'll click next. I can understand the vague connection to England through her mother for the English-American category, but American expats in the UK? I had a quick look and found nothing in the article about her living in the UK. What's that all about? ByteofKnowledge 20:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The ex-pat thing is probably due to UK tabloid newspaper claims the she was looking to move to the UK. It happens all the time: as soon as a foreigner becomes popular in Britain the papers start printing stories like "(X) looking for house in Britain!"; "(Y) moving to the UK! [insert invented quote]". They are mostly crap, but sometimes correct (by chance I'm sure). As for the English-American category, I don't see how a living maternal grandmother could be considered a vague connection: it makes her mother half-English with a right to a UK passport for a start. And anyway, this resource is packed full of so-called "Irish-Americans", their only claim (often made on their behalf by Wikipedians seemingly with an agenda) is made on the basis of an Irish relative tracked back five or more generations and ignoring any other nationalities in their heritage - including since the claimed Irish member. Other claims are based on nothing more than surname, rumour and hair/eye colour. Or you get the ridiculous situation we ocassionaly have with Mischa Barton - born in the UK to an English father and Irish mother yet in the past some Wikipedians have insisted she is Irish-American and not English-American and have tried to delete references to the UK. 86.17.211.191 14:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

TV Show

Britney's reality TV show, Chaotic: Britney & Kevin, premiered on UPN, not MTV. It may have showed on MTV in syndication later on, however it was first shown on UPN. I am not sure how to change this in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cdoerr (talk • contribs) 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC).


Separate articles

Does anyone else think this article is getting too long? I think that the pop culture and public image sections need their own articles or need one together. The hitaus, children and divorce section needs to trimmed down. Charmed36 00:17, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

image

I noticed the current image is a bit old and doesn't show her face and would like to propose the following picture I took.

Image:12rb9.jpg

Greolock 02:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Send proof to permissions(at)wikimedia(dot)org and it works for me. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 03:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What do I give them or say? Greolock 19:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for permissions, but what I would usually do is send another image with the same camera as proof I took it myself. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

New picture

We have to put a new picture of Britney the one there is now is way to old. Take one from the new years eve party of from her at the award show where she was just months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.25.197.193 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Alledged Lesbianism

Shouldn't there be something in the article about the In Touch Weekly magazine article which makes accusations that Britney Spears has had several lesbian relationships and how it may affect the outcoming of the battle for custody of her children? 68.162.0.79 03:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can source it, then sure. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 10:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In Touch Weekly, which claims the exclusive, quotes "[r]ap music producer Omar 'Iceman' Sharif," an unidentified "insider", and an unidentified "friend". I wouldn't touch that story with a ten-inch "marital aid"... RadioKirk (u|t|c) 18:37, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


CNN Citation incorrect

The CNN citation (#44) link is given as a NBC studio article, the same link as the one Citation #43. Below is a CNN article about Britney that may be the correct article. [3] Zidel333 22:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


Salon Owner

The article implies the salon owner shaved Britney's head. According to CNN, the salon owner refused and Britney herself did the shaving.


I saw a couple things of it on the channel E! today and the people at the salon did refuse to do it so she did it herself. It doesn't make sense that she tried to get them to shave it since she claims that she got it done because she wanted people to stop "touching" her. --Sexecutioner 00:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


Here's a recent article from ABC that covers this. It should be added as a citation. http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Health/story?id=2885048&page=1

Bald Image

To the editors of this article, please do not add an image of Britney's recent bald photos if they are not free use. Also, consider proposing picture changes here on the talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

This'll be one to watch for developments. It looks like Britney's losing it. The current image is fine though in my opinion.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Unplug attribution,"according to TIME" please, thanks.

"Spears has sold over seventy-six million records worldwide according to TIME magazine.[1]" should be shortened to "Spears has sold over seventy-six million records worldwide.[1]"Modocc 19:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Image

As for the image, I think one of my colleagues has one that was taken at a more recent concert. If I can get him to find it, we'll go ahead and replace it, per discussion above. Imageboy1 21:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I do. I took about a hundred pics at the concert. I'll sift through and find one to use. BUDSMR 22:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, putting it in. BUDSMR 22:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Lol, it's SP, put it in for me. BUDSMR 22:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist. :) Imageboy1 22:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Britney_Spears/Archive_4&oldid=1136580491"